Jump to content
The World News Media

The Holy Spirit


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Which of course is true of every human that has ever lived.

However, this doesn't exclude mistaken notions of which you appear to have provided an example:   "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant,  "anointing with power and power"(?)"  Did you speak this of your own originality? Or were you taught?

Anyway, the best description of Holy Spirit as I have been taught is provided by Jesus who said:

(John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
(John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.

What about you? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit.

 

Here are a few quotes from what TRINITARIANS SAY about HOLY SPIRIT

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 21k
  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cos: What you have stated is OPINION.  You have proved NOTHING, except that you can type. Both God and Christ have a personal name ... what is the Holy Spirit's name .... Casper? If so,

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s ac

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to thos

Posted Images

  • Member
18 hours ago, Cos said:

Gone Fishing,

 

The JW’s speak how they have been taught. Did you not see what the watchtower claims? My question to you is, do you understand the language that you speak? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit. <><

Here are a few quotes from what TRINITARIANS SAY about HOLY SPIRIT

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Here are a few quotes from what TRINITARIANS SAY about HOLY SPIRIT

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Otto

Hi. Is there something significant about your quoting of Trinitarian references 3 times?

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledgement of the late and ecclesiatical sanctioning of the doctorine is interesting.

But apart from noting the continued muddled definition of the word "power", only the description in the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia makes any real sense to me, although I don't find any lack of clarity in the Greek Scriptures (New Testament).

Thanks

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Which of course is true of every human that has ever lived.

However, this doesn't exclude mistaken notions of which you appear to have provided an example:   "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant,  "anointing with power and power"(?)"  Did you speak this of your own originality? Or were you taught?

Anyway, the best description of Holy Spirit as I have been taught is provided by Jesus who said:

(John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
(John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.

What about you? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit.

 

Gone Fishing,

 

The Holy Spirit is, as the Scriptures you quoted explain, a Person, clearly distinct from the Father (not a subspecies of metaphor as has been claimed) and distinct from Jesus. To quote from one of your passages you cite;

 

John 16:13-14 “…he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come…he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.”

 

Throughout these passages that you quoted from John's Gospel, Jesus ascribes the same or similar personal actions to the Holy Spirit as He does to the disciples and even Himself (e.g., I will go/He will come; I have things to say/He will speak). It would be very strange to ascribe these personal actions in the same way and in the same statement to real persons and then to a thing.

 

John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT)

 

John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” (NWT)

 

In the dialogue Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one person to another. It makes no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit is not a person.

 

Notice if you will John15:26–27;

 

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness…”

 

Note how Jesus says the Spirit will “bear witness” just as the disciples will bear witness (“you also…”). Jesus regards the Spirit as being just as much a person as each of the disciples, and speaks of them in the same terms. much more can be said but time is short and I want to respond to another person.  <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 hours ago, Otto said:

The holy spirit is Gods and belongs to him therefore it will always be associated with God as no one else as his holy spirit jesus is never referred to as holy spirit but as using God's Holy Spirit.

 

How can the Holy Spirit be in equilibrium with Jesus and God as you stayed when a person can sin against God and Jesus but not sin against the Holy Spirit I also think that you would know the name for the Holy Spirit if it were a person the Bible but after all personified sin and wisdom and speaks about things as though they have gender

Otto,

 

My wife, in the marital relationship, belongs to me and I belong to her (1 Cor. 7:4) yet we are distinct persons. I belong to God, and if you are a true follower of the Lord Jesus then you too would belong to God also, yet distinct persons nonetheless, so your “belong” idea does not mean what you assume.

 

You really should read Matthew 12:31, you can only blasphemy a Person, and to blasphemy the Holy Spirit significantly is to sin against Him. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
41 minutes ago, Cos said:

It would be very strange

To you...

42 minutes ago, Cos said:

It makes no sense

To you....

But to me it is not strange, and makes perfect sense.

By your method of exposition in bolding the personal pronouns and italicising certain verbs,  you emphasize your view that the Holy Spirit is a separate person "distinct" from the Father and "distinct" from Jesus it would seem?

Using the same method, how do you see wisdom?:

"Is not wisdom calling out? Is not discernment raising its voice?  On the heights along the road, It takes its position at the crossroads. Next to the gates leading into the city, at the entrances of the doorways, it keeps crying out loudly:  “To you, O people, I am calling; I raise my voice to everyone.  You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness; you stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.   Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right;  For my mouth softly utters truth, and my lips detest what is wicked. All the sayings of my mouth are righteous. None of them are twisted or crooked.  They are all straightforward to the discerning and right to those who have found knowledge. Take my discipline instead of silver, and knowledge rather than the finest gold, for wisdom is better than corals; all other desirable things cannot compare to it. I, wisdom, dwell together with shrewdness; I have found knowledge and thinking ability. The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. I hate self-exaltation and pride and the evil way and perverse speech.  I possess good advice and practical wisdom; understanding and power are mine. By me kings keep reigning, and high officials decree righteousness. By me princes keep ruling, and nobles judge in righteousness.  I love those loving me, and those seeking me will find me. Riches and glory are with me, lasting wealth and righteousness. My fruitage is better than gold, even refined gold, and what I produce is better than the finest silver. I walk in the path of righteousness, in the middle of the pathways of justice; I give a rich inheritance to those who love me, and I fill up their storehouses." Pro.8:1-21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Cos said:

Otto,

 

My wife, in the marital relationship, belongs to me and I belong to her (1 Cor. 7:4) yet we are distinct persons. I belong to God, and if you are a true follower of the Lord Jesus then you too would belong to God also, yet distinct persons nonetheless, so your “belong” idea does not mean what you assume.

 

You really should read Matthew 12:31, you can only blasphemy a Person, and to blasphemy the Holy Spirit significantly is to sin against Him. <><

At NO point are you and your wife the same person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Cos said:

Gone Fishing,

 

The Holy Spirit is, as the Scriptures you quoted explain, a Person, clearly distinct from the Father (not a subspecies of metaphor as has been claimed) and distinct from Jesus. To quote from one of your passages you cite;

 

John 16:13-14 “…he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come…he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.”

 

Throughout these passages that you quoted from John's Gospel, Jesus ascribes the same or similar personal actions to the Holy Spirit as He does to the disciples and even Himself (e.g., I will go/He will come; I have things to say/He will speak). It would be very strange to ascribe these personal actions in the same way and in the same statement to real persons and then to a thing.

 

John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT)

 

John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” (NWT)

 

In the dialogue Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one person to another. It makes no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit is not a person.

 

Notice if you will John15:26–27;

 

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness…”

 

Note how Jesus says the Spirit will “bear witness” just as the disciples will bear witness (“you also…”). Jesus regards the Spirit as being just as much a person as each of the disciples, and speaks of them in the same terms. much more can be said but time is short and I want to respond to another person.  <><

COS.....

 

Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the masculine personal pronoun to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26;16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17,21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·raʹkle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneuʹma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuʹma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·raʹkle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

Lacks personal identification. Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—CompareAc 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52;19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, Int and other interlinear translations

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.